MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109752607 · doi:10.1177/0093854820972731

The Influence of Familial and Peer Social Support on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Among Black Girls in Juvenile Correctional Facilities

2020· article· en· W3109752607 on OpenAlexaff
Camille R. Quinn, Donté T. Boyd, Bo‐Kyung Elizabeth Kim, Sujeeta E. Menon, Patricia Logan‐Greene, Eseosa Asemota, Ralph J. DiClemente, Dexter R. Voisin

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologyPoison controlJuvenileInjury preventionJuvenile delinquencyPopulationHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthPsychiatrySuicide preventionSelf-esteemMedicineMedical emergencyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Black girls bear a higher burden of juvenile justice involvement in the United States, relative to other racial/ethnic female groups. Emerging evidence suggests that system involvement is related to trauma histories and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This study investigated the associations between individual, family, and peer factors, and their relationship to PTSD among Black girls with juvenile justice involvement. Cross-sectional data were collected from 188 Black girls in detention. Measures assessed were history of abuse, negative peer norms, future orientation, caregiver support, self-esteem, age, and PTSD symptoms. Major regression findings indicated that higher rates of caregiver support, higher negative peer norms, lower self-esteem rates, and lower future orientation rates were correlated with greater PTSD symptoms. Treatment programs for this population warrant a multisystemic approach, which includes caregivers and peers, and bolstering important constructs such as self-esteem and hopefulness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207